Template talk:Sidebar
Documentation move I just moved the huge documentation from the template itself over to a new project page: Wiki 24:Sidebar documentation. My reasons for this can be found here: Wikipedia:Template documentation. Essentially, even though the instructions were inside a "noinclude" transclusion: the text on the template page itself adds to the amount of text which must be processed when displaying the template. Also, the MediaWiki developers recommended moving huge documentations off the templates themselves, so, I'm deferring to their judgement here. (Most other template documentations on this wiki aren't as huge as this one's, so I don't plan on making any more moves like this in the future.) – Blue Rook 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)talk Hour Could someone help me put in a section that says "Hour" but won't come up on every page? Thanks! When I did it before it seemed to screw everything up. SignorSimon 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC) : Topic pretty much continued over at Forum:Problem with episode infoboxes. – Blue Rook 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)talk The stuff to do with The Game can be removed now. I daren't do for fear of destroying it like before. SignorSimon 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC) : Thanks for reminder on that, I completely forgot. I think I got them all, yes? : Also, I'm pretty sure you would have done the same removals I just made; have no fear about editing templates, and always remember there is no problem with self-reversions especially in cases of templates... since sometimes it's the only way to know if you're right! In fact, I'm waiting to see right now if I've mucked anything up... – Blue Rook 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)talk Affiliation Is "affiliation" really necessary for every character? In my opinion, like on Wikipedia, the way "affiliation" has been used to describe certain characters seems rather point-of-view and not 100 percent factual. Proudhug's opinion requested. --Deege515 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) : I agree completely. Any character's affiliations is something that should be made clear in their introductory sentence/paragraph. I see no need to have it in the sidebar at all. It clutters it up and, like you said, what to include there is often very subjective. --Proudhug 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Just keep the ones we have. No need to undo all the work. ---CWY2190talk 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC) : How come? --Proudhug 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Type of template Now to be a big critic, but you guys should really make this a wikitable infobox instead of a sidebar. The wikitable looks better and works better than this. I'm not saying to change it, but I just think it would work better than this. You can talk to me if you have any questions about this. --'Spencer' Talk 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC) : I'm looking at infoboxes on various editing help articles on other wikis, and I don't notice even any visual differences between them and what we're using here. Is what we're using broken in some manner? If it's not broken, I can personally guarantee that nobody in this community is going to run through every single article that uses this most common template of all on this wiki to change them ;) : Also, what are you recommending? You say "you guys should really make this a wikitable infobox instead of a sidebar" but then you contradictorily say "I'm not saying to change it". Which one do you mean? 00:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Here is an example of what I am proposing. --'Spencer' Talk 12:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC) : That link isn't helping me much, though. I only see two differences: the template you linked to is larger, and there is a horizontal line between each field. That's it, right? How does the template you linked to work better than the one we're currently using. (I don't agree that it looks better.) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC) ::To me the wikitable looks more proficient and is to the right instead of the left which looks better. You also said it is larger but it doesn't have to be larger if you want. The horizontal lines help keep things in order since (to me) no lines on the sidebar mess me up a bit. I also want to know why you don't think it looks better. (To me it does.) --'Spencer' Talk 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC) : Whoa... you're saying that the sidebars on this wiki are on the left of your screen? I don't see how that's possible; what browser are you using? Please upload a small screenshot of something with a sidebar on this wiki... I have definitely always saw those sidebars on the right, and even though I've used many different computers, browsers, and operating systems (and browse anonymously from time to time), I've never once seen the sidebars on this wiki appear on the left. 22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC) ::Wow, my computers just hate me I guess. I'll try to get one on here. Wait.... Do you want me to "upload" it on here or to use a hotlink like PhotoBucket? Thanks, --'Spencer' Talk 03:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC) : I was thinking of an upload, but if you can just link to the image elsewhere, that would be perfectly fine too. Whatever is easiest for ya. I just want to get to the bottom of this... are many or all of the computers you're using to browse this wiki showing the sidebar on the left, or just 1? It's just such a strange and disturbing idea that other users are seeing it on the left. 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC) ::http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk119/spencemac724/Picture1-1.png Here it is.... ::--'Spencer' Talk 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) :Firefox is messed up but Safari works just fine. I'm confused.... --'Spencer' Talk 03:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC) That's extremely troubling! The problem (I think) is that you're not loading the Skin we have set here at this wiki as default. Would you be willing to try something? Go to Preferences, click the Skin tab, then select "Sapphire" under the Monaco heading at the top. Then scroll down and click "Let the admins override my skin choice." Then save. This should fix everything, especially the color scheme (which you're not seeing, apparently) and the location of the sidebar. If it's not a trouble, show me a pic of the results too. How is Safari different? 03:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) :I'll try that, and Safari actually puts the temp on the right. That's the only main difference. The only reason why I have this skin is because the wikis I run look better in the "Smoke" Skin instead of the default. --'Spencer' Talk 03:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) ::Well what do you know! The default works! Thanks for everything! --'Spencer' Talk 03:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Why the double lines? It seems that, whenever the appearances: field is used, you get a pair of horizontal bars, one on top of the other. It's dumb and needs fixing, but my attempts were useless. You can see what I mean on Grant at the moment. Take note that firstseen: and lastseen: and episode: fields all seem to be okay, which is good since those superior alternatives are used much more often than appearances:. I believe the issue may have something to do with the following lines of code, the purpose of which I cannot determine: |- }| style="text-align: center;padding-left: 6px;padding-right: 6px; border-top:1px solid #666;" colspan="2" }} | }| style="text-align: center;padding-left: 6px;padding-right: 6px; border-top:1px solid #666;" colspan="2" }} Any ideas? 01:19, September 14, 2011 (UTC) : Okay I think I fixed it, I removed the last half of those lines of code. Seems to work, but please keep an eye out on the sidebars to make sure I didn't screw up something else. 01:29, September 14, 2011 (UTC) Passengers entry I see that the documentation for this template mentions a "passenger" entry for flights and vehicles. Was that eliminated? Thief12 (talk) 03:10, August 12, 2012 (UTC) : Not sure. It might have been in the template and then cut out from it (perhaps even by myself, in an effort to keep the template trim), or it might never have existed outside the documentation in the first place. It would take a while to sort through the diffs to find out, but if you want to use those fields ("crew" is also similarly missing) then you can add em. 23:54, August 12, 2012 (UTC) Stunt/body doubles What does anyone think to a "doubled by" field for body doubles who didn't perform stunts? It seems wrong to list someone like Kya Garwood under "stunts" when thats not what she did--Acer4666 (talk) 16:26, June 20, 2014 (UTC) Death date or Cause of death I just reverted an edit by Cubs Fan2007 by returning "Cause of death" to "Death date", etc. I had made that edit back in 2011 July 13, for the purpose of shortening those fields in terms of width. These sidebars can get real ugly when the fields are forced onto new line breaks, especially given certain browsers. I'm definitely open for discussion of course, but wanted to explain my motive for the RV here. 06:07, June 28, 2014 (UTC) Belligerents The term "belligerent" usually refers to a combatant in a war, and the only time this parameter is used is in articles covering terrorist attacks. So I feel it would be more appropriate to rename it to "participants" or "perpetrators". Objections? 22:37, September 21, 2015 (UTC) : That is a good point, I agree; of your two options I do like "perpetrators" better. 00:59, September 26, 2015 (UTC)